Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.

The Forest Service is seeking applicants to a committee that will help set fees for outdoor use. This committee should be reviewing fees for hiking in the Central Cascades. Members of the committee are volunteers, but their travel expenses are reimbursed.

As much as I oppose the Central Cascades plan, it would be helpful to have concerned hikers on this committee. Applications are due Nov. 30.

closing roads and is currently working on a way to manage campsites, they have requested input for which sites to "Keep open". While this is in the beginning stages the FS has already announced the "sustainable trails" project as well and I quote "This will be very controversial".

closing roads and is currently working on a way to manage campsites, they have requested input for which sites to "Keep open". While this is in the beginning stages the FS has already announced the "sustainable trails" project as well and I quote "This will be very controversial".

source? not doubting.. but the earlier to meet them at the pass on this...

closing roads and is currently working on a way to manage campsites, they have requested input for which sites to "Keep open". While this is in the beginning stages the FS has already announced the "sustainable trails" project as well and I quote "This will be very controversial".

source? not doubting.. but the earlier to meet them at the pass on this...

Both the NF-93 and proposed campsite closures have to do with current budgetary problems with the USFS: they do not have enough money to do all the work that needs to be done, so some things don't make the cut. This includes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to repair a bridge that is likely to be repeatedly damaged due to runoff when other access options are still available.

Per the NF-93 proposal:

While the Forest Service is open to creative solutions to address this funding deficit, we also are not legally allowed to shift funding from other program areas or budgets to cover this gap. The Forest Service gets different funds associated with different purposes from Congress, and we cannot move money allocated for one thing (e.g. timber sales) over to road maintenance without Congressional authority to do so. This means we are forced to make hard decisions with where to spend our limited road budget.

The US as a whole is horribly underinvested in infrastructure and has a huge backlog of deferred maintenance, both municipally and in terms of land management - hence the SNAFU earlier this year with the Parks Dept trying to jack up the entrance fees in some national parks to pay for it.

If you have info about the "controversial" Sustainable Trails project, that seems like it would be more germane to this discussion of the USFS restricting usage to reduce human impact. I don't recall hearing anything about this project before - are they also planning quotas and permits?

People complain about the FS in general and then ask why if they are doing this in Central Oregon, they are not doing it in the Gorge or on Mt Hood. The answer to that is that the FS is not monolithic, different forests and different districts have great latitude in how they respond to issues.

So my suggestion is that for every time you call in central Oregon to complain about their plans, also call the Scenic Area or Mt Hood NF and tell them you are glad they aren't doing that. And that if they run into a problem in a specific area, deal with it in a focused way. Tell them that when you don't like the crowds in some area, you go somewhere else, or go at times to avoid the crowds.

No guarantees, but since the difference that already exists in how management is done results from different cultures in those organizations, calling will help to reinforce that. Praise is as important as criticism.

different forests and different districts have great latitude in how they respond to issues.

This is a really good point. I've been speaking to various stakeholders who have experience working with land managers throughout the country. My question has been the same for these folks: "Why are these strict measures being laid down in Central Oregon of all places." The answer has been consistent: Local land managers have a tremendous amount of discretion to do what they want. All it takes is one or two strong voices in an office to decide that its time to lock down a forest.

I like the idea of praising officials who do a good job at balancing access and conservation. As for the current situation, I still believe that various forms of pressure--social, political, legal--might ultimately yield a better result.

I was talking to a FS person last summer. I think he worked in the Rocky Mts somewhere.

We were talking about over crowding. I argued the same thing as here, people should be encouraged to use the forest and Wilderness. Crowds should be managed. There will be some small areas that have a lot of people which is contrary to Wilderness principals, but over-all it's a good thing.

He argued that use should be restricted to control crowding.

I can see how they think that. They are not bad people for thinking this. I just think they need to adjust how they think about this. Look at it from a bigger picture, the population of the country appreciating and using public land. Not just, for example, looking at how crowded Green Lakes area is and how it's no longer Wilderness, untrammeled by man.

It would help if they had adequate funding and oversight from congress.

Disclaimer:
This is a free, private forum and opinions posted by its members do not necessarily reflect those of Trailkeepers of Oregon. Hiking is a potentially risky activity, and the entire risk for users of this forum is assumed by the user, and in no event shall Trailkeepers of Oregon be liable for any injury or damages suffered as a result of relying on content in this forum. All content posted on the forum becomes the property of Trailkeepers of Oregon, and may not be used without permission.